memex

delete_memory

Delete a specific memory owned by your agent to remove outdated or incorrect information.

Instructions

Delete a specific memory by ID. The agent_id is used as an ownership check —
agents cannot delete each other's memories.

Args:
    agent_id:   Agent that owns the memory.
    memory_id:  UUID of the memory to delete (from store_memory or search_memories).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "agent_id": "<agent_id>",
      "memory_id": "<memory_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_memory"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`agent_id`	Yes
`memory_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure. It mentions the ownership check and deletion, but does not describe idempotency, error states, or return values (though output schema exists).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very concise with a clear structure: one-line summary followed by parameter descriptions. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simple delete operation and presence of an output schema, the description is almost complete. It could mention idempotency or confirmation, but the existing details (ownership check, parameter sources) suffice.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaningful explanations: agent_id is 'Agent that owns the memory' and memory_id is 'UUID of the memory to delete (from store_memory or search_memories)'. This compensates fully.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Delete a specific memory by ID', which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from sibling tools (store, search, count) by specifying deletion.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives context on usage by stating 'agents cannot delete each other's memories', implying a constraint. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server